Jump to content
N-Europe

One over Bush!

The fish

By The fish
in General Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

The fish Newbie

The fish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Pwned? I don't get it surely this is win win. How has he got pwned? He didn't want them to be detroyed and they aren't.

 

No, no, no, no, no, you don't get it do you?

The evangelical christians in the US (Bush is one of them) don't like stem cell research fundamentaly.

 

This is kinda crazy, as had this new method not been found, loads of people who could be cured of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease wouldn't be as scientists wouldn't be allowed to create the cells, using stem cells, which would cure it.

 

The reason for this is probalby due to the inhabitants of the bible belt having a collective IQ of 10 points short of a moron...(no offense to anyone who lives in the relevent states, it's a bit of a gerneralisation).

 

Anyway, he can't block it now, as his only reason (or should I say excuse...) is that some bloke in a robe says that book that dosen't actaully mention the subject somehow says it is wrong.Er...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mundi Newbie

Mundi

Posted
Posted
Pwned? I don't get it surely this is win win. How has he got pwned? He didn't want them to be detroyed and they aren't.

 

He meant "pwned" as in that Bush and Co don´t want thst stem cell reaserch are done because to them it´s unethical and ofcourse whats unethical to Bush means that it´s unethical to everybody or else or your a communist

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Haden Newbie

Haden

Posted
Posted
No, no, no, no, no, you don't get it do you?

The evangelical christians in the US (Bush is one of them) don't like stem cell research fundamentaly.

 

This is kinda crazy, as had this new method not been found, loads of people who could be cured of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease wouldn't be as scientists wouldn't be allowed to create the cells, using stem cells, which would cure it.

 

The reason for this is probalby due to the inhabitants of the bible belt having a collective IQ of 10 points short of a moron...(no offense to anyone who lives in the relevent states, it's a bit of a gerneralisation).

 

Anyway, he can't block it now, as his only reason (or should I say excuse...) is that some bloke in a robe says that book that dosen't actaully mention the subject somehow says it is wrong.Er...

 

OBJECTION!

 

Here are some qoutes from the article that you posted.

 

"And in 2001, President George W Bush declared federal funding would only be available for research using the 61 human embryonic stem cells lines already in existence, where a "life or death decision had already been made".

 

A spokeswoman for Mr Bush described the new approach as encouraging.

 

"We have shown for the first time you can create human embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo and thus without destroying its potential for life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pestneb Newbie

Pestneb

Posted
Posted
No, no, no, no, no, you don't get it do you?

The evangelical christians in the US (Bush is one of them) don't like stem cell research fundamentaly.

 

This is kinda crazy, as had this new method not been found, loads of people who could be cured of Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease wouldn't be as scientists wouldn't be allowed to create the cells, using stem cells, which would cure it.

 

The reason for this is probalby due to the inhabitants of the bible belt having a collective IQ of 10 points short of a moron...(no offense to anyone who lives in the relevent states, it's a bit of a gerneralisation).

 

Anyway, he can't block it now, as his only reason (or should I say excuse...) is that some bloke in a robe says that book that dosen't actaully mention the subject somehow says it is wrong.Er...

 

 

you seem to be the one not getting it.

The reason they were against stem cell research, and deemed it unethical was because it resulted in death of the embryo.

the new system, harvesting cells without killing the embryo circumvent this death, and thus the objection.

now its similar to for example giving blood.

 

Afaik, stem cell research has yet to be proven, it is simply seen as theoretically possible. if it works (and science does sometimes fail, or rather the understanding of science scientists have does, I hope you are able to understand that) then that is good. If you have links about it actually working in humans, and being used in humans and having encouraging results I would be very interested in any links.

 

The average IQ of any person in a set population is 100. the distribution of IQs of 100 aren't equally spread, but ideally in a population of ten the average IQ of the group will be 100.

If you add a further 10 to the group the average IQ will remain 100, regardless of the actual intelligence of the additions. a high IQ doesn't show high intelligence, it is a relative marker.

some of the most stupid foolish people I have met have had high IQ's, and I have met people with low IQ's who display intelligence and wisdom, even though they are "below average".

 

I just want to point this out because I find IQ snobbery pretty repulsive, especially as most people who use more often than not don't have a clue about Intellignece Quotients and their correct usage. a person with a low IQ is valid, their opinions and feelings are valid.

 

also I don't think evangelicals listen to men in robes, that tends to be more traditional denominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The fish Newbie

The fish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
you seem to be the one not getting it.

The reason they were against stem cell research, and deemed it unethical was because it resulted in death of the embryo.

the new system, harvesting cells without killing the embryo circumvent this death, and thus the objection.

now its similar to for example giving blood.

 

Afaik, stem cell research has yet to be proven, it is simply seen as theoretically possible. if it works (and science does sometimes fail, or rather the understanding of science scientists have does, I hope you are able to understand that) then that is good. If you have links about it actually working in humans, and being used in humans and having encouraging results I would be very interested in any links.

 

The average IQ of any person in a set population is 100. the distribution of IQs of 100 aren't equally spread, but ideally in a population of ten the average IQ of the group will be 100.

If you add a further 10 to the group the average IQ will remain 100, regardless of the actual intelligence of the additions. a high IQ doesn't show high intelligence, it is a relative marker.

some of the most stupid foolish people I have met have had high IQ's, and I have met people with low IQ's who display intelligence and wisdom, even though they are "below average".

 

I just want to point this out because I find IQ snobbery pretty repulsive, especially as most people who use more often than not don't have a clue about Intellignece Quotients and their correct usage. a person with a low IQ is valid, their opinions and feelings are valid.

 

also I don't think evangelicals listen to men in robes, that tends to be more traditional denominations.

 

Jesus fucking christ you're an anal basted, arn't you?

The IQ thing is a joke and an exageration.

The cell is destroyed noramly, which they don't like becuase it kills it, not because it is alive, but because "it has a soul", which is bullshit.

 

Anyway, I'm far, far to annoyed with my school to type up a full argument, so meh.

 

 

(that showed him!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Haden Newbie

Haden

Posted
Posted
Jesus fucking christ you're an anal basted, arn't you?

The IQ thing is a joke and an exageration.

The cell is destroyed noramly, which they don't like becuase it kills it, not because it is alive, but because "it has a soul", which is bullshit.

 

Anyway, I'm far, far to annoyed with my school to type up a full argument, so meh.

 

 

(that showed him!)

 

 

All it showed it that your incapable of sustaining an argument.

 

You have exhibited bias against George Bush, Southern States and Christianity. And thus you leapt on this story as a chance to stick it to all three but without doing your homework. And you basically debased yourself.

 

I'm not having a go although your being quite rude now but just try and be less driven by hate towards bush or southerns in the future. : peace:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The fish Newbie

The fish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
All it showed it that your incapable of sustaining an argument.

 

You have exhibited bias against George Bush, Southern States and Christianity. And thus you leapt on this story as a chance to stick it to all three but without doing your homework. And you basically debased yourself.

 

I'm not having a go although your being quite rude now but just try and be less driven by hate towards bush or southerns in the future. : peace:

 

You're just luck I can't be arsed to type out loads, other wise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlueStar Newbie

BlueStar

Posted
Posted
People will still vote for bush as he was seen as being a 'good christian' by vetoing it though. So i think he still wins in the long run unfortunately.

 

Just like his legion of GodBotherers will vote for him because of the abortion issue simply because he makes the right noises, in spite of the fact he has no intention of doing anything whatsoever to make abortion illegal in the US because it would be political suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The fish Newbie

The fish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My policy is if there is a cure for alziemer's or parkinson's desease, people who were against stem cell reserch, which should find a cure for it, shouldn't be allowed to receive it.

...

Ok maybe thats slightly unfair, but I do think those people who dug up the mother of a guy who worked in a animal testing lab should be voulentier to be human guinea pigs. If they don't want animals harmed, then they should take the tests them selves.

 

Talking of tests, I think all those fucking cocks who sit around saying "GCSE's are too easy" should be forced to do 11 GCSE's work and exams, for 2 years.

If they are "too easy", they should get A*'son all the courses. If they do that, then they are too easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Jordan

Guest Jordan

Posted
Posted

Bush is a tool simple as, you really think he understands any of this anyway?

The fact is, the white house is run by zionists and evangelicals. They are totally against stem cell research and abortion.

 

Legally, something isn't actually alive till its born and religion should have no say in that what so ever. If it can benefit the living, do it. Simple as.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The fish Newbie

The fish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Bush is a tool simple as, you really think he understands any of this anyway?

The fact is, the white house is run by zionists and evangelicals. They are totally against stem cell research and abortion.

 

Legally, something isn't actually alive till its born and religion should have no say in that what so ever. If it can benefit the living, do it. Simple as.

 

Thank you, at last, someone else who knows what I'm on about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Haden Newbie

Haden

Posted
Posted
Bush is a tool simple as, you really think he understands any of this anyway?

The fact is, the white house is run by zionists and evangelicals. They are totally against stem cell research and abortion.

 

Legally, something isn't actually alive till its born and religion should have no say in that what so ever. If it can benefit the living, do it. Simple as.

 

Ok its spilling into a larger debate which I figured it would do.

 

Ok Bush is an idiot right I will give you he is not a good orator but him being an idiot is just a very easy thing to say backed up by every cheap charicture of him that has been made.

 

The white house is run by evangelicals and zionists. Nope wrong, they are one of many pressure groups that make up American politics. Many evangelicals have felt betrayed by the Bush administration and please give me a break over the zionist conpiracies you have no evidence.

 

Your last argument is ridiculous, That is a form of utialitarism thought that would casue a lot of trouble. A 19th century Irish philospher whos name escapes me takes this argument to its logical conclusion and it isn't pretty. Also just becaues something is legal doesn't make it right just look at history for evidence of this. All legal means is the state has decided what is right. Also your wrong anyway as it is illegal to have an abortion at a certian point so the baby is regonised as alive.

 

Man this debate is going to go on forever now ah well its all fun. :hehe:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Jordan

Guest Jordan

Posted
Posted

I know i'm going totally off topic and i do agree with some points you've made Haden. The fact is, if you don't think the White House is run by Zionists you must be insane.

 

Lets think here, why did they invade countries and build enourmas oil pipe lines? The Isreali's have so many fingers up America's ass they can pretty much do whatever they want. Why did only America and the UK (mostly because our country is also run by tools...) say no to a cease fire? America has total power over any decision because they'll veto anything they don't like... and just why does so much money go to Isreal every year?

 

Back to the stem cell stuff, i honstly believe that untill a child is born its not a living thing. You can remember being born? Can anyone? The fact is, you can't remember much because your brain has to keep building itself up untill you're about 5 years old and even more. If we can use stem cells to cure the living, then so be it no matter the cost. 'Playing God' so to speak has to be done, its the only way we're gunna advance science further and anyway we've already thrown natural selection out of the window when cures for diseases were found... why stop there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mario114 Newbie

mario114

Posted
Posted

I think it's good that they have found a more ethical way of stem cell research, though as someone above said it's still just research, which probaly has a long way to go before it can be used to help people. I myself don't agree with the destruction of fertilized embryo's, but I have no objection to stem cell research. Remember back to my history GCSE (the study of medicine through the ages) when new technology came out, people were always fearful of it, it's probaly the same with this new research when it starts to help those with bad conditions, people will accept it more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...